[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Dropping architectures alpha and m68k from the Installation Guide

On Wednesday 14 October 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 October 2009, Brian Szymanski wrote:
> > As far as the burden on translators goes, is there a priority ranking
> > system for what needs to be done? Seems like that could help here...

Sorry, I misread that comment.

Yes, there is a priority system when it comes to translating. And I have 
used that in the past for new translations. I've suggested a few times to 
start with certain chapters and also to postpone parts that are not 
relevant for x86.

And it would in theory be acceptable to leave specific text for non-release 
arches untranslated.

The main problem is that, except for the few cases where arch-specific 
stuff is in completely separate files, there is no way to tell whether it 
is arch-specific text that is not up-to-date, or general text. And that 
only goes for XML-based translations; for PO-based translations it is 
practically impossible.

Partly because of that I'm (as release manager for the manual) not willing 
to accept that translators treat the less popular architectures as 
second-class citizens. As long as we have one source for the manual that 
includes all architectures and as long as we "sell" Debian as the 
universal OS, the you can either translate the whole manual, or not at 
all. I simply don't want to have to wade through translations to check 
exactly what bits are and are not up-to-date every time I prepare a 
release [1].

IMO an outdated or incomplete translation can be worse that having no 
translation at all.

[1] Although I am always willing to make exceptions on a case-by-case 

Reply to: